Jeremy Scahill: The United States Has Become A 'Nation of Assassins' With Drone Attacks

[Better Believe It]

Jeremy Scahill: US Has Become 'Nation of Assassins'
US Peace conference puts face to drone victims
by Common Dreams staff
April 30, 2012

Peace group CODEPINK and the legal advocacy organizations Reprieve and the Center for Constitutional Rights hosted the first International Drone Summit as a way to build an organizing strategy against the growing use of drones, call an end to airstrikes that kill innocent civilians, and to prevent the potentially widespread misuse both overseas and in the United States.

"Drone victims are not just figures on a piece of paper, they are real people and that’s why it is important to see what happens on the ground when a missile hits a target," said Pakistani attorney Shahzad Akbar, according to the Pakistani newspaper DAWN. “We have to see what exactly is happening on the ground, what is happening to the people,” he told the Washington conference.

During his speech, journalist Jeremy Scahill, who has done in-depth reporting on the US drone program in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen, questioned the Obama Administration's policy of assassination. "What is happening to this country right now?" asked Scahill after noting that recent legislation in the US Congress opposing the assassination of US citizens abroad without due process received only six votes in the House of Representatives. "We have become a nation of assassins. We have become a nation that is somehow silent in the face of -- or embraces, as polls indicate -- the idea that assassination should be one of the centerpieces of US foreign policy. How dangerous is this? It's a throwback to another era -- an era that I think many Americans thought was behind them. And the most dangerous part of this is the complicity of ordinary people in it."

Scahill was emphatic in his talk that the drone and assassination programs have received wide bi-partisan support and lamented those in the US who ceased to voice their concern over such policies as soon as President Bush left office. "President Obama has shown us in a very clear way that when it comes to the premiere national security policy of this nation, there is not a dime's worth of difference between the Democrats and the Republicans."

Read the full article at:

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/04/30-2


--------------------------------------------------------------------



Peace conference puts face to drone victims
by Anwar Iqbal |
April 29, 2012

WASHINGTON: Drone victims are not just figures on a piece of paper, they are real people and that’s why it is important to see what happens on the ground when a missile hits a target, argues Pakistani attorney Shahzad Akbar.

“We have to see what exactly is happening on the ground, what is happening to the people,” he told a Washington conference on drones.

Akbar told an audience of about 300 people from across the United States that it was important to put faces on the drone victims; otherwise people will not understand their plight.

“They feel this imminent threat of being attacked from the sky. And they feel helpless because they have no other place to relocate. Many have no skills, no education, so they cannot relocate to other parts of Pakistan,” he said. Advocate Akbar showed a photo of a teenager named Saadullah, who was helping his mother in the kitchen when a drone hit their home in Fata in 2009. He woke up in a hospital three days later without his legs.

Read the full article at:

http://dawn.com/2012/04/30/peace-conference-puts-face-to-drone-victims-fm/


---------------------------------------------------------------



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 30, 2012

ACLU Credits White House for Drone Strike Transparency, but Says Program Still Unlawful
ACLU National Security Experts Warn Program Flouts Constitution


NEW YORK - April 30 - President Obama’s top counter-terrorism adviser today publicly confirmed that the United States conducts targeted killings of suspected terrorists using drones.

In a speech this afternoon at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, John Brennan insisted the targeted strikes are a “wise choice” and “legal” and within the boundaries of international law. However, ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer said Brennan’s statement did not go far in explaining how the program passed constitutional muster.

“This is an important statement – first because it includes an unambiguous acknowledgement of the targeted killing program and second because it includes the administration’s clearest explanation thus far of the program’s purported legal basis.” Jaffer said.

“But Mr. Brennan supplies legal conclusions, not legal analysis. We continue to believe that the administration should release the Justice Department memos underlying the program – particularly the memo that authorizes the extrajudicial killing of American terrorism suspects. And the administration should release the evidence it relied on to conclude that an American citizen, Anwar al-Aulaqi, could be killed without charge, trial, or judicial process of any kind.”

Brennan maintained the Obama administration was committed to transparency when it came to deciding who would be subject to lethal drone strikes. But Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU National Security Project, said the program is both unconstitutional and overly broad.

“We continue to believe, based on the information available, that the program itself is not just unlawful but dangerous. This statement makes clear that the administration is treating legal restrictions on the use of force as questions of preference. Moreover, it is dangerous to characterize the entire planet as a battlefield,” Shamsi said.

“It is dangerous to give the President the authority to order the extrajudicial killing of any person – including any American – he believes to be a terrorist. The administration insists that the program is closely supervised, but to propose that a secret deliberation that takes place entirely within the executive branch constitutes ‘due process’ is to strip the Fifth Amendment of its essential meaning.”

###


The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) conserves America's original civic values working in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in the United States by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-credits-white-house-drone-strike-transparency-says-program-still-unlawful

[coalition_unwilling]

1. But then we'd be allowing all those terrorists

disguised as children to escape. (in case it's needed)

[quinnox]

2. Um, our democracy drones bring freedom

to millions, and its unpatriotic to be against them. Sometimes freedom can be messy, and its never free.




(I'm not the one who came up with "democracy drones", another duer did, I just like it so much I stole it)

[Better Believe It]

4. "Democracy drones" is a bit like "liberty napalm" and "freedom bombs".

[quinnox]

5. indeed n/t

[Dragonfli]

112. They say marketing is everything, try to sell "kill a wedding party full of women and children" it

is a hard sell that only Republicans will respond positively to.

But "Democracy Drones" sound like friendly little helpers that will kill the wedding party in a way that makes Democracy flourish.

Marketing!!!! Got to love it!

[bluestate10]

3. One person's opinion.

Any one opposing your viewpoint can trot out many people who 100 contradict Scahill's view.

[Autumn]

6. Then trot them out

[bluestate10]

144. It is easier for you to find a firebrand willing to open his mouth, than

it is for me to find rational people that support drone strike policy. The fact is, Scahill is toward the middle of war correspondents. The well known correspondents focus on reporting the news and not being part of it. I watched MSNBC one Sunday morning when Scahill was one of the panelists, he opened his mouth and got butchered by tow of the other two panelists. My guiding principle on drone strikes is best summed up in the legaln treatis by Professor Robert Perry Barnridge Jr. His point was that there IS legal and humanitatian justification for the use of drone strikes as long as the practicioners use prudence when launching the strikes. US military and administration professionals are not bloodthirsty animals that launch drone strikes at anytime, there are humanitarian decision making involved, that is infinitely more than I can say for the targets of the strikes. BTW, the majority of democrats, even progressive democrats soundly disagree with your position, as they are well advised to.

[Ken Burch]

84. Clearly, no actual good has come of the drones.

We should just have left the Middle East on 1/20/09(other than, specifically, maybe looking for Osama...although the insiders are saying that we STILL can't admit the "war on terror" is over after Osama's death.

Obama never needed to be a hawk to get re-elected. The voters weren't demanding Scoop Jackson The Second.

[sabrina 1]

124. Please trot them out. But they need to have the credentials Scahill has. Reports today from

The Guardian, confirm that the massacre by drone in Pakistan last year did kill over 50 civilians, as claimed at the time by eyewitnesses. Why are we attacking Pakistan?

I'd like to see someone as credible as Jeremy Scahill's prove him wrong. So feel free to post those articles.

[sad sally]

142. Ditto, and why are we attacking Yemen, Somalia, the Philippines, American citizens?

[Bolo Boffin]

7. Another Obama Administration-bashing article from Better Believe It.

[msongs]

8. another criticizing the messenger without commenting on the content nt

[Bolo Boffin]

9. The messenger has an agenda. n/t

[blue neen]

10. Uh huh.

The posse is in the house.

[Bolo Boffin]

12. There are plenty of places that welcome Obama-bashing during the general election season.

DU is not one of those places.

[blue neen]

17. We agree.

One has to wonder why posters would be spending their time posting criticism that is not constructive during the general campaign season.

[Bolo Boffin]

34. Thanks! :D

[Luminous Animal]

23. So all those thousands of posts on against Bush's wars weren't sincere...

they were merely Bush-bashing. Got it then by the earful from Fox News and the Republican Party via Fleischer and Rumsfled and got it now... be very careful about what you say.

[Bolo Boffin]

26. I feel very badly about your dilemma. n/t

[Luminous Animal]

36. I don't have a dilemma. There is a wide world wide web out there and there is Occupy.

Last edited Tue May 1, 2012, 01:33 AM - Edit history (1)

My daughter has lived nearly her entire life as a citizen of a bully nation that beats the crap out of an already beleaguered citizenry. We are the architects of creating of millions of homeless people, millions who live with diminished modern services (electricity, clean water, & sewage) because we crippled those services with bombs, millions dead and mutilated, millions who live in fear of the next drone strike. I will continue to protest wars for, at the least, her respect; and, at best, that millions of people I do not know, can live in peace.

[Bolo Boffin]

40. How do you think assisting the election of Mitt Romney is going to help your goals? n/t

[Luminous Animal]

45. Got it. Protesting against war and drone warfare = assisting Romney.

Last edited Tue May 1, 2012, 01:12 AM - Edit history (1)

[Bolo Boffin]

46. Nope - Posting Obama-bashing articles incessantly at a board committed to re-electing him

= assisting Romney.

Please do me the kindness of quoting me correctly.

[Luminous Animal]

48. Democratic Underground is an arm of the Democratic Party?

Did the admins tell you this? Did they tell you that anti-war DUers are no longer welcome?

[neverforget]

52. And posting here will sway the Election too!!!

[Bolo Boffin]

53. Allow me to quote the Terms of Service that you have agreed to.

Vote for Democrats.

Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

Emphasis mine.

I repeat: are both major-party nominees clear? Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee, clearly. Mitt Romney is the Republican nominee, clearly. Election season in the presidential race has begun.

Therefore if you are posting here, you must support Democratic nominees (except under the few exceptions mentioned, none of which apply to this presidential contest).

[Luminous Animal]

73. Given that Romney hasn't critisized either Bush or Obama for their wars (that is, Romney

does NOT have an anti-war platform), I'd hope most Democrats can read war critics, post articles about war critics, discuss war, and make an intelligent decision to vote for a pro-war Democrat (a member of their own party) or a pro-war Republican (not a member of their own party).

I understand what you are saying. You believe that DUers cannot openly protest the wars and drone warfare. That, we must not speak any truth to power (and, indeed, the Presidency is power writ large) but must subsume ourselves to that power. That we can KNOW the misery that is perpetrated on innocents but we must not speak on the innocents behalf. That we cannot be courageous and continue the fight of our heroes but rather meek and silent in the face of massive human suffering that is done in our name.

Got it.

"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; you can't even passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!" - Mario Salvo

[Bolo Boffin]

81. "I understand what you are saying." Clearly you do not.

My argument is not against anti-war Democrats or anti-war DUers.

My argument is a cumulative one against the sum total of Better Believe It's posting history. Very often Better Believe It posts OP that have been posted by other DUers. Duplicate posts, in other words. Do you see me there pointing out the poster keeps posting threads that bash Obama?

It's not about the topic at all. It's about what this poster is doing.

[Luminous Animal]

90. Oh, I do see. Too many ant-war posts = bashing Obama. It's okay to be little bit anti-war but

it is not okay to be prolific anti-war.

Did you just call BBI, "it"?

[Bolo Boffin]

93. Please stop misrepresenting me.

And, no, I didn't call BBI "it." My post is right there, unchanged, unedited - and even if I had edited it, the original would be available.

BBI has the word "it" in his or her name. You misread what I wrote. You're making that a habit.

[whatchamacallit]

118. Fine, I'll repost the article

And you can comment on the content or STFU.

[got root]

68. First. Obama is NOT the emperor of democrats. 2nd opposing policy decisions is our right

not only as democrats, but as americans.

FYI

[woo me with science]

104. Yup, and opposing *horrific* policy decisions is not just our right,

but our responsibility.

[Ken Burch]

86. We don't have to be silent about the barbaric drone program to re-elect the prez

There's nobody out there who's only gonna vote for him because he kills him some A-rabs.

It's time to be done with the hawkishness now anyway. Osama's dead and the whole damn war no longer needs to be fought.

Only the far right and the far rich want the militarism to go on. Nobody with any progressive or humane views actually still thinks the drones are necessary.

[Dragonfli]

94. Bravo! You have my respect for your beliefs, they show character and honesty. /nt

[woo me with science]

107. Hear, hear. nt

[Dragonfli]

88. They appear to be saying just that without even realizing it

Such is the danger of using vaguely defined half words invented by teenagers.

I don't speak teenager very well, but the teenage mind tends to thing in all or nothing terms.

As am example, a teenager will say,"you NEVER let me talk on the phone", "you ALWAYS keep me from going out with my friends".

They don't or can't yet understand that sometimes a parent may not let them use a phone for x reason or that sometimes the child is grounded and not allowed out for say a weak.


It is hard to have a real discussion about serious issues using all or nothing teenage terms. IMHO

[Ken Burch]

82. You can't just say that ANY criticism is "bashing".

We don't need total suppression of dissent to win.

Besides, if Obama does get re-elected...you'll be saying "nobody complained during the campaign, so that must mean all Dems are OK with the drones".

[Bolo Boffin]

87. No, I can't. And I don't.

My critique of Better Believe It is based on BBI's cumulative posting history here, not this one particular post or another.

As I pointed out elsewhere, BBI frequently posts OPs that already have been posted here. You don't see me on those threads calling what they are doing Obama-bashing. My concern is a pattern of posting.

[Dragonfli]

91. So basically you have it out for BBI and would try to get him banned (by slander if necessary)

Do you have others here you stalk? Am I on the hit list as well?

Or is it just BBI's criticism of bad policy that you have a personal vendetta against?

I would like to know as I may have to protect myself by putting you on ignore.

[Bolo Boffin]

99. I have it out for the tactic of posting Obama-bashing threads incessantly here at DU.

And I will speak out about it. Be BBI's sources and articles ones that I agree with and support, or ones that most DUers would rightly abhor (and there are examples of those as well), I will speak out about the tactic, the cumulative experience with BBI's threads here.

[Dragonfli]

106. Sorry, it sounds personal to me, you should post on the content of the OP rather than

use an OP as an excuse to paint someone as a troll.

Are you able to comment on the subject rather than the person?



Last word of advice, stop stalking posters, and if you do,
answer the content rather than call the author names, that would be discussion rather than a personal problem brought to a political board.

[Bolo Boffin]

114. How could it be personal? I don't know anything about BBI other than his or her tactics.

The tactics stop, I got nothing!

[Dragonfli]

116. How can it be personal? Dude, you are an admitted stalker of BBI that has said

it is not the posts but rather the poster you have a problem with.

That is personal (or in terms you like) you a "hater" that's "bashing" BBI

[Ken Burch]

92. Is there any reason we should be made to be publicly silent about the drones?

There's no reason to demand DU aquiescence in some in something that brutal and senseless. And what harm does it do for DU to make it clear that we don't want Obama to veer towards imperialism?

You know perfectly well that there's no longer any reason for us to be doing anything military at all in the Middle East. And that the public isn't demanding that the U.S. keep killing people there.

[Bolo Boffin]

100. I have not advocated that you should be made to be publicly silent about the drones.

I am pointing my finger at the tactic employed by BBI to post any and all derogatory articles BBI can find about Barack Obama.

[Ken Burch]

105. Nothing BBI is doing is going to help Romney

The ONLY thing that can help Romney is for Obama to blur the differences this fall. If we run a campaign that says there's a few rich people and a huge number that aren't, and we will be the party of the non-rich, we are assured of victory. If we run a campaign that says we will break with the permanent war economy and Romney will keep it going, we will win.

A mobilization campaign wins. A triangulation campaign loses, as always. Understood?

[Bolo Boffin]

119. Take a look at another BBI thread down below, the religious belief one.

I'm reading a book right now called "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman. The research in that article is based on a lot of the same social psychological work Kahneman has done all his life.

What Better Believe It is doing is called priming. (The Wiki link I tried to add isn't working right, so if you would, do a search for priming. The Wiki article should come up.) Pay special attention to the "In Daily Life" section of that article - it's the closest to what Kahneman talks about. By posting every derogatory article BBI thinks he or she can get away with here at DU, he or she makes sure that President Obama is always, always, always seen in a bad light here. By continually associating the President with these stories and all the hyperbolic rhetoric in them, BBI guarantees that it is harder for DUers to vote for the President.

What's true of religious beliefs in that other article is actually true of any belief statement made by people, as Kahneman shows. The research is unmistakable. The constant association of President Obama with any and all bashing wears down enthusiasm and support for him. Of course we should hold him accountable for bad decisions and things we don't agree with. But BBI is going further than most DUers. The range of articles reproduced incessantly, even duplicated here at DU from other DUers, tells me that BBI is actively trying to depress the vote for Barack Obama by blurring the differences between he and Mitt Romney.

And that will help Mitt Romney.

This isn't about maintaining an unthinking faith in Barack Obama. It's about maintaining any support of him in the face of a relentless assault of negative news and rhetoric about him by someone dedicated to ensure a steady flow of such material.

[Bobbie Jo]

171. Nailed it perfectly. nt

[Swede]

172. Kudos

[Autumn]

11. So what the message reveals doesn't matter,

we just need someone else to post it to make people happy. If the administration would quit doing these things no one would have to deliver the message. You seem to worry about the wrong agenda.

[Bolo Boffin]

13. See Post #12.

DU will always know the difference between someone disappointed with individual policies of our President, and someone actively working to depress election turnout and undermine his re-election.

[Luminous Animal]

14. Yes the messenger does. Stop assassinating people around the world.

When do you suggest anti-war people (as anti-war now as they were during the Bush Admin) should be able to talk about war again? After the election? When Obama is out of office? Or an undefined time in the future when a Republican is in office?

[Bolo Boffin]

20. I invite you to read the Terms of Service you agreed to when signing up for an account.

Both major party candidates are clear. This is the general season for the presidential election.

[Autumn]

22. I think that comes in when Skinner says so, not when you say so.

[Bolo Boffin]

29. What do you say? Are both major party candidates clear or not?

Who's going to take the nomination away from Mitt Romney?

[Autumn]

130. I doesn't matter what I say. Skinner is the one who will announce that.

He always has before.

[quinnox]

25. nowhere in the TOS does it say we must support all policies of the Obama administration

Believe it or not, you can be against the drones assassination program and still be a Democrat. I know that may be shocking to some folks.

[Bolo Boffin]

31. I don't believe I said that at all.

Perhaps you should read my posts again.

[Luminous Animal]

28. So, advocating against the wars is anti-Obama. Got it.

No anti-war people are allowed to post their views here.

[Bolo Boffin]

32. Obama ended the Iraq War.

So, no, advocating against the wars is not anti-Obama. Where did you get such an idea? Not from anything I've said.

[Dragonfli]

101. I am so glad we pulled out of Afghanistan and pulled back our freedom drones from other countries

I woke up this morning thinking the senseless death was still in process.
I am so glad it was just a dream.

[Ken Burch]

102. He ended it too late to matter

It should have been ended 1/20/09. There was no excuse to draw that out, and everyone who died in the drawdown died for nothing. If you vote against the party that started the war, you have a RIGHT to expect the party you elected to end the damn thing immediately.

Nothing is better at all in Iraq for the U.S. war being continued for two MORE years. Nothing is different in a good way at all.

By dragging it out, Obama essentially endorsed Bush's war.

[Bolo Boffin]

108. It should never have been started.

And no war ever ends immediately. That's completely unrealistic and not what I voted for when I voted for Barack Obama. I voted for a responsible end to the Iraq War, and that's what I see he did, being responsible to many more constituencies than me.

That said, he still pulled out when many wanted him to stay longer. I don't see that as an endorsement of Bush's war at all. I see that as ending it.

[Ken Burch]

110. World War I and World War II ended immediately. So did our Civil War.

As far as I can see, Obama only dragged it out because he thought it made him look more "macho" to keep it going(also, possibly, he dragged it out to placate Hillary the Free-Trade Imperialist, but that's another matter).

There was nothing positive in Iraq in January of 2009. The place was and is a dead loss. To drag out the withdrawal(and to delay it at one point)was just about making it clear that he looked down on peaceniks.

That's a bullshit attitude for a Democratic president to have. We're past the age when the deployment of U.S. troops can ever possibly have any progressive or positive effect(other than disaster relief, but we're not talking about that).

[Dragonfli]

115. It may have been because the Iraqis asked us to leave at the date they set with Bush

Under that scenario (the real one) Obama kept them there as long as he possibly could, he wanted to keep them even longer than the Bush date, but they kept insisting that our personnel act within the rule of law, that was a deal breaker for some reason, perhaps laws are best not followed, just like here where bankers that break the law and torturers that break the law get a free pass to ignore the rule of law.

The Iraqi people obviously are not evolved enough to understand that some should be above the law, luckily, the last POTUS and the current one are evolved enough for a two tiered system of laws that places some safely and completely ABOVE the law.

Perhaps they will get on board with the country of men over the country of laws concept as we have.

[girl gone mad]

15. You have an agenda.

Why not be honest about it?

[Bolo Boffin]

16. Yes, I do - the re-election of the Democratic candidate for president.

Quite happy to be fully honest about it.

[girl gone mad]

24. You attack leftists..

in an effort to defend really shitty neoliberal policies.

This is how you plan to get the Democratic candidate for President re-elected?

Ha!

[Bolo Boffin]

27. It's attacking someone to point out they keep posting Obama-bashing articles here?

I thought that's just a simple statement of fact.

[Dragonfli]

39. Just because you appear not to know the difference, the truth is not Obama Bashing, it is simply the

truth.

[Bolo Boffin]

41. And the truth is that Better Believe It again and again posts Obama-bashing articles here.

There are many examples to choose from.

[Dragonfli]

69. He posts many articles that are true and embarrassing for our party, I will grant you that

But criticizing bad policy is not "bashing" (a simplistic and childish characterization I might add).

It is not the fault of the boy if the Emperor is streaking no matter how much that person may criticize the nakedness he merely reported on it, he did not strip the Emperor down.

[Dragonfli]

76. Bashing is not a real word, it is childish and rude, close to breaking the rules here

Define "bashing".

It is something I expect a young child to accuse a teacher of if the teacher criticized cheating on a test.

Use adult words if you wish to be understood.

[Bolo Boffin]

79. "Bashing" is a word used in the Terms of Service.

Since you agreed to the Terms of Service when you signed up here, what did you think it meant then?

[Dragonfli]

83. I am not as new as you, long ago they did not use such a childish term.

I don't like it because it is unclear as to definition, unless you and others believe we will bludgeon him with some sort of heavy object, as far as I know, no one (not even the trolls here) have bludgeoned the POTUS with a heavy object.

If you wish me to understand, use actual English, I speak English, but am not fluent in teenager.

As a courtesy perhaps you could indulge me.

[Bolo Boffin]

85. Really? You signed up in 2004. I signed up in 2002.

So you are newer than I, actually.

[Dragonfli]

98. Good! then you remember that the teenage words are new in the TOS, that makes it easier to

get you to understand that I never agreed to use teenage words as a smear against fellow DU'ers.

[blue neen]

30. What is your plan to get Democrats elected and re-elected?

Right now, in May of 2012.

Positive ideas are welcomed. Thank you.

[got root]

47. they remind me of these guys

?w=500
?w=500&h=750
?w=500&h=332
?w=500&h=667
?w=500&h=330
?w=500&h=600
?w=500&h=660
?w=500&h=694
?w=500&h=500
?w=500&h=640

[karynnj]

133. As apposed to a series of posts that assume the worst of Obama, sounds good to me

On this, the use of drones bothers me, but the alternatives may not be any better. Consider the drones being used in Northwest Pakistan and in Yemen. In Pakistan, it is clear that the government of Pakistan does not control the area (which is why it is called the lawless area) OR through the ISI, they are encouraging the attacks on the coalition - as they speak of fighting the terrorists and being our ally. What is JS's recommendation for anything to replace the drones? I doubt he wants either soldiers on foot there or manned flights. Is his alternative to this INTERNATIONAL effort for all to leave and hope that Pakistan can control them being a terrorist hotbed?

How does raising this issue HELP Obama? Do you think that before the election Obama will suddenly change the aggressive policy that he has taken? The only real alternative to Obama is Mitt Romney - and it is unlikely that he would be less aggressive - in fact, his rhetoric on Iran is very aggressive. Domestically, there is a world of difference. If Romney is elected, you can count on the safety net being shredded. Though Obama could not sign single payer into law, HCR does insure more people and provide more subsidies. Just as the far right has to consider the real choice - and vote for a candidate who they never liked, the far left needs to look at similar calculations. (Not to mention, Obama is to the left of the last two Democratic Presidents and is the more liberal than any nominee of the party except John Kerry and maybe Mike Dukakis in the last 25 years. )

[Dragonfli]

38. Yes, the same agenda we all had when it was a Bush doing it, some don't change their views with the

wind or whim of a politician.

Some opposed "freedom carpet bombing" in the sixties and many of them do not think that killing a group of innocents to get a man that may or may not be there or may or may not be guilty because the lover of freedom bombs wears the appropriate jersey with the obligatory and yet insincere (D) embroidered on the lapel.

Some people believe what was once the Democratic platform, some will not applaud killing just because they think it is some sort of football game.

Some realize that the agenda should be what is good for the country rather than what is good for the MIC or other lobbyists that foot the bill for the politicians and their money games.

In short some still have a moral compass.

Why do you support killing so easily without question or remorse?
Why do you support the standards set by George W Bush? Are you perhaps not a Democrat?
It is getting harder and harder to tell these days now that right wing views get so much approval from supposedly left wing sources.

I have so many questions about the new and rising moral ambiguity coming from the right of the Democratic party.

I have been a Democrat for over 35 years and I have to say that only recently would a Democrat not understand that evil is, well evil.

Stealing issues from Republicans and calling them left wing is more akin to lying IMHO.

But I am older and less sociopathic than the newer generation of Democrats.
Perhaps I am no longer wanted or needed because I still hold the same views my party once did.

Perhaps you are the future, unfortunately.

[Bolo Boffin]

42. How do you expect assisting the election of Mitt Romney will advance your stated goals? n/t

[Dragonfli]

59. Who is campaigning for Mitt Romney here? The discussion is about an issue, not who

we are supporting, if that is your problem, you should know that BBI is on record as supporting the POTUS over any Republican.

The post is about the truth that many feel "freedom bombs" are bad policy, we are not required to support bad policy, but rather to support Democrats over Republicans.

You have the mistaken impression that criticizing bad policy equates to support for Republicans, a rather silly and difficult to support conclusion.

Many of us would prefer a candidate that is opposed to bad policy and say so publicly in the hopes that our candidates will listen past the lobbyists, (quixotic I know), but it is a matter of supporting good policy rather than bad policy, not Mitt over Barrack.

Sadly, we have no choice but to support Obama at this point, that does not in any way mean we have to support every Republican carry over policy he likes, that is asking too much of those that oppose Republican policy, even if that policy is supported by a registered Democrat.

[blue neen]

70. It's kind of interesing that you feel the need to tell us who BBI is supporting for POTUS.

I mean, why would there even be a question, right?

Really, how do you know whom the OP supports?

If LBJ would have decided to run in 1968, would you have supported him? If you would have supported him, would it have been gladly, or sadly?

[Dragonfli]

74. It has come up and I have a memory, so I felt I should enlighten those that are ignorant of the fact

That he is supporting the lesser of the evils available (Obama).

I supported LBJ's Great Society, I also criticized and was bludgeoned by cops for not supporting a senseless war.

So I guess my support was mixed, not gladly, but better than the other warmongering murdering assholes.

Much like with Obama.

I imagine I will be assaulted eventually for demonstrating against the Afghanistan clusterfuck, not exactly a good sign of the moral fitness of the lesser of some really evil shit.


Thanks for bringing me back to those days, I remember how much fun it was helping Abby to "levitate" the pentagon.

The bad memories were centered around the convention, I was badly injured there and will do so again even as an old man!

Now as with then, I will vote against my best interests because to vote otherwise would be to vote even more against my own best interests. Obama has my support only as a matter of degree of evil, but he has it nonetheless.

[Bolo Boffin]

71. Undermining and bashing the Democrat candidate incessantly is the equivalent

of supporting the election of Mitt Romney.

My critique of Better Believe It's posting habits (shared by many other DUers) is not based on one single thread or one single issue. It's a cumulative thing. We see it happening again and again and again. And now that we are in the general presidential election season, I'm speaking out about it.

[Dragonfli]

75. It is a simplistic childish view complete with childish words like "bashing". Reality is not so

black and white as you would paint it, criticizing bad policy is not "bashing" nor is it a support of an even worse candidate on these issues.

Try to become a bit more adult, a bit more nuanced in your understanding of things like criticism.

Listen, I get that doing the wrong thing is embarrassing for our candidate and for our party, but those that criticize the embarrassing bits are not the ones doing it, the ones doing it are the ones in power.

Embarrassing or not, it is fair game if it is true.

[got root]

18. i don't think a campaign comercial will be enough

[Bolo Boffin]

21. It's a battle of words, the poster bearer cried.

Better Believe It has his Obama-bashing articles, I have Obama campaign commercials.

We will see which will prevail here at DU.

[got root]

35. yeah, and what you brought to the table isn't enough to gloss over the crimes committed in our names

though that may dominate in the M$M, I doubt it will prevail among the informed on the www.

[Bolo Boffin]

43. So I'm attempting to gloss over the crimes committed in our names?

Interesting. I thought I was supporting the re-election of Barack Obama on a board committed to re-electing him.

[got root]

50. yes

[Dragonfli]

55. The Generals sat and the lines on the map , move from side to side.

You do realize that the song you chose spoke of the hypocracy of those that control the map, are not in danger of dying, and care not for the men that do die in that map game.

You should not bring up a band or song that you simply do not understand.

Try it in context to see how the lyrics you posted mirror the OP's point of view rather than your own rather indoctrinated one.



Us and Them
And after all we're only ordinary men
Me, and you
God only knows it's not what we would choose to do
Forward he cried from the rear
and the front rank died
And the General sat, as the lines on the map
moved from side to side
Black and Blue
And who knows which is which and who is who
Up and Down
And in the end it's only round and round and round
Haven't you heard it's a battle of words
the poster bearer cried
Listen son, said the man with the gun
There's room for you inside
Down and Out
It can't be helped but there's a lot of it about
With, without
And who'll deny that's what the fightings all about
Get out of the way, it's a busy day
And I've got things on my mind
For want of the price of tea and a slice
The old man died

[Bolo Boffin]

56. Who knows which is which and who is who?

Pretty sure I understand that sonq quite well, having morosely sung it the night George Bush shocked and awed Baghdad, every bit of marching against and protesting that war I had done for nothing.

But this I also know: Barack Obama is not the same as Mitt Romney. And I'm here to make sure Barack Obama gets re-elected.

You, too, right?

[EFerrari]

60. Does Skinner know you're out here harassing members of his web site?

You can't possibly believe this is how you get votes for the president.

If this is your technique, you should really stick to campaign work that involves folding flyers and licking stamps.

[Bolo Boffin]

66. If what you think I'm doing is harassing, why don't you let him know?

I'm pointing out that someone who posts Obama-bashing threads is here doing it again and then responding to people who respond to me. That hardly fits anyone's definition of harassment. If anything, I'm the one being harassed.

[EFerrari]

134. Yes, you are discussing the poster and not the article.

Harassment.

[LanternWaste]

151. llow a editorial critical of specific policies to stand on its own merit also.

"If what you think I'm doing is harassing, why don't you let him know?"

I imagine the same standard is then also true for you and your vendetta against BBI. Let Skinner know your concerns with a specific poster and I presume he will allow it all the credibility it warrants; and in kind, you then allow a editorial critical of specific policies to stand on its own merit also.



Attempting to yell louder than bad news isn't effective-- it's petulant; rationalizing it though, takes us into the realm of the absurd.

[Dragonfli]

64. Over the even more "right" candidate, most assuredly, but I will not support needless death.

I am sorry if that means I can not pass your arbitrary litmus test.

I am a Democrat, not an Authoricrat.

[Bolo Boffin]

67. Where have I asked you to support needless death?

Please stop putting words in my mouth. I'm quite capable of speaking for myself.

[Dragonfli]

72. You're kidding right? The OP is about NOT supporting this shit, and you call it "bashing"

Is this not what we have been talking about?

I recced this OP because I do not support needless death, you consider such lack of support for drone policy "bashing" and so you are asking me and others to support this crap by not opposing it.

It is rather clear, no?

[Bolo Boffin]

78. No, I am not kidding. I have never asked you to support needless deaths.

My critique of Better Believe It's threads here is a cumulative one based on the sum total of what Better Believe It does here. It's not topic-specific.

So, no, your assumption I'm supporting needless death and asking you to do likewise is completely wrong.

[Dragonfli]

80. It may be wrong in other cases, but not in this OP, the only way to please you here

Is to chastise a person for opposing needless death, that is the same as asking me to endorse it.

I have seen many threads by BBI and they are all (the ones I have seen) been about criticizing bad policy, criticism is not "bashing" (can you start posting without using a teenage non-word that is so hard to define and use English instead?)

[Hissyspit]

109. Children Killed. Rescuers Killed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan

Reports of the number of militants versus civilian casualties differ.[13] Daniel L. Byman from the Brookings Institution suggests that drone strikes may kill "10 or so civilians" for every militant killed.[14] In contrast, the New America Foundation has estimated that 80 percent of those killed in the attacks were militants.[15] The Pakistani military has stated that most of those killed were hardcore Al-Qaeda and Taliban militants.[16] The CIA believes that the strikes conducted since May 2010 have killed over 600 militants and have not caused any civilian fatalities, a claim that experts disputed and have called absurd.[13] Based on extensive research, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that between 391 - 780 civilians were killed out of a total of between 1,658 and 2,597 and that 160 children are reported among the deaths. The Bureau also revealed that since President Obama took office at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims. More than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners. Tactics that have been condemned by legal experts.[17][18][19]

[Bolo Boffin]

111. Imagine those numbers under a President McCain. n/t

[Dragonfli]

113. Imagine those numbers under a peace loving Democrat (try zero as the goal) /nt

[morningfog]

126. We don't have to imagine the numbers under Obama. They are real.

[Bolo Boffin]

128. Oh, I bet you can think of how much worse President McCain would have been.

Just try.

[Hissyspit]

155. And you might actually be wrong. Although we'll never know.

And that still doesn't make the OP an Obama-bashing OP.

Fallacious argument.

[Bolo Boffin]

156. You think a President McCain body count would have been better than President Obama's?

No, you don't.

[morningfog]

159. Obama's IS too high. That is the point.

[Bolo Boffin]

161. Too high compared to what?

A boots-on-ground invasion to accomplish the same task? Firebombing the place? A President McCain solution?

Or maybe we could round them all up and then ship them to Guantanamo Bay? Would that be better?

[morningfog]

163. Too high compared to those who are innocent and should be alive.

I don't have to engage in hypotheticals.

We don't need to invade, fire-bomb, elect McCain or round them all up. We need to quit killing innocent men women and children.

[Bolo Boffin]

165. "Yes, war is hell."

But I am certain about one thing. We are at war. We are at war against a terrorist organization called al-Qa’ida that has brutally murdered thousands of Americans—men, women and children—as well as thousands of other innocent people around the world. In recent years, with the help of targeted strikes we have turned al-Qa’ida into a shadow of what it once was. They are on the road to destruction.

Until that finally happens, however, there are still terrorists in hard-to-reach places who are actively planning attacks against us. If given the chance, they will gladly strike again and kill more of our citizens. And the President has a Constitutional and solemn obligation to do everything in his power to protect the safety and security of the American people.

Yes, war is hell. It is awful. It involves human beings killing other human beings, sometimes innocent civilians. That is why we despise war. That is why we want this war against al-Qa’ida to be over as soon as possible, and not a moment longer. And over time, as al-Qa’ida fades into history and as our partners grow stronger, I’d hope that the United States would have to rely less on lethal force to keep our country safe.

Until that happens, as President Obama said here five years ago, if another nation cannot or will not take action, we will. And it is an unfortunate fact that to save many innocent lives we are sometimes obliged to take lives—the lives of terrorists who seek to murder our fellow citizens.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002634542

[morningfog]

166. War is a racket.

When did al-Qeada in Pakistan carry out an attack in the US?

[Bolo Boffin]

167. I'll be happy to discuss this with you further here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002634542

[morningfog]

169. Brennan has no legitimacy after being caught in a lie about civilian dead in drone strikes.

I wouldn't trust a word from his mouth. He is full of shit:

"Brennan said the recently announced troop reduction in Afghanistan would have no impact on U.S. counter-terrorism strategy in that country and Pakistan, where, he said, the U.S. has been delivering “precise and overwhelming force” against militants.

In the peculiar dance that marks the administration’s discussions of this issue, Brennan did not explicitly mention the vast expansion of drone strikes the U.S. has undertaken in Pakistan since January 2009— 213 of them, according to the New America Foundation, which counts them through media reports. That is because the program technically is secret, even though it is widely discussed and openly acknowledged by U.S. and Pakistani officials in private.

Later, when asked whether a policy of targeted killing was appropriate for the United States, Brennan responded that the U.S. is “exceptionally precise and surgical in terms of addressing the terrorist threat. And by that I mean, if there are terrorists who are within an area where there are women and children or others, you know, we do not take such action that might put those innocent men, women and children in danger.”

He added that in the last year, “there hasn't been a single collateral death because of the exceptional proficiency, precision of the capabilities that we've been able to develop.”"

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/29/news/la-pn-al-qaeda-strategy-20110629

Flat out lie. And he knew it at the time.

[ProSense]

19. Maybe the U.S.

"recent legislation in the US Congress opposing the assassination of US citizens abroad without due process received only six votes in the House of Representatives."

...has become a nation of complaining after Congress acts.

"ACLU Credits White House for Drone Strike Transparency..."

At least they're not doing it in secrecy so there can be push back.

[pscot]

49. Drone strike transparency

That's right up there with destroying villages to save them. Refresh my memory. Was that a campaign promise in 2008?

[ProSense]

51. It wasn't

"Drone strike transparency...That's right up there with destroying villages to save them. Refresh my memory. Was that a campaign promise in 2008? "

...to start a war with a country that had nothing to do with terrorism and kill a million civilians in the process.

[got root]

61. doesn't really give a wit what other countries or people think

thats what the record would lead a reasonable person to believe, no matter who may be in the WH.

[ProSense]

63. .

[got root]

65. .

[bhikkhu]

33. Every major war in the last century has involved bombing cities

Until the war in Kosovo, I don't recall it being a political issue, or a civil liberties issue. In Kosovo, we were supposed to have a "clean" war, with smart bombs and highly accurate targeting. It worked to an extent, and the current drone program is more less the technological grandchild of that.

I hope more people can see that war is the problem. When the drone program is called legal, it is only in the context of a war. Looking at the history of war, current technology is a huge improvement on other methods, but that really only emphasizes how bad things have been. End the war and the problem is solvable.

[got root]

37. it's murder, just the same, on a smaller scale

for evil ends

[gratuitous]

44. We're at war with Yemen and Pakistan?

Because that's where a lot of our missiles are landing nowadays.

[EFerrari]

62. Families of drone victims probably think so. nt

[sad sally]

150. don't forget, we've also launched drone attacks in the Philippines

Can't let those Chinese think we're not everywhere.

Deadly Drone Strike on Muslims in the Southern Philippines - MARCH 05, 2012

Just as in Pakistan and other theatres of the "war on terror", the strike has provoked controversy, with a Filipino lawmaker condemning the attack as a violation of national sovereignty. This controversy could increase with the recent American announcement that it plans to boost its drone fleet in the Philippines by 30 per cent. The U.S. already has hundreds of troops stationed on Jolo Island, but until now, the Americans have maintained a non-combat "advisory" role.

The expansion of U.S.' drone war has the potential to further enflame a volatile conflict involving the southern Muslim areas and Manila, which has killed around 120,000 people over the past four decades. To understand what is happening in the Philippines and the U.S.' role in the conflict, we need to look at the Tausug, among the most populous and dominant of the 13 groups of Muslims in the South Philippines known as "Moro", a pejorative name given by Spanish colonisers centuries ago.

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2012/0305_drones_philippines_ahmed.aspx

And must not forget Somlia:

APRIL 23, 2012
CIA Transfers Drone Strikes to Military in Somalia, A US Drone attack in Somalia kills 18 people. The deadly weapon has killed hundreds over the last few months.

[gratuitous]

153. Absolutely

And there may be other countries with unexplained missile explosions as well. My response was mostly aimed at the post's assertion that the legality of drone murder was conditioned on the context of war. Well, we're using drones as a missile-launching platform in any number of countries (Yemen and Pakistan came to mind first, but you're correct to include the Phillippines) where we aren't at war either by executive fiat or act of Congress.

And there is a depressingly large number of people who I think should know better who are fine with it, simply because of the party affiliation of the current occupant of the Oval Office.

[sad sally]

154. There's no way "freedom-leeching" drones and the control they have now and will continue to

gain over all of human-kind can be stopped - and all done under the umbrella of security, with so little debate by so few.

the rise of the machines is real...

[xchrom]

54. Du rec. Nt

[neverforget]

57. White House approves broader Yemen drone campaign

From the April 25 Washington Post:

The United States has begun launching drone strikes against suspected al-Qaeda operatives in Yemen under new authority approved by President Obama that allows the CIA and the military to fire even when the identity of those who could be killed is not known, U.S. officials said.

The policy shift marks a significant expansion of the clandestine drone war against an al-Qaeda affiliate that has seized large ­pieces of territory in Yemen and is linked to a series of terrorist plots against the United States.

--snip--
The expanded authority will allow the CIA and JSOC to fire on targets based solely on their intelligence “signatures” — patterns of behavior that are detected through signals intercepts, human sources and aerial surveillance, and that indicate the presence of an important operative or a plot against U.S. interests.

Until now, the administration had allowed strikes only against known terrorist leaders who appear on secret CIA and JSOC target lists and whose location can be confirmed.
--snip--

This is not going to end well.

[DeSwiss]

58. Cowards and assassins with lousy aim.....

Cowards who kill women, children and teenaged boys and the occasional terrorist (the ''Broken Clock Paradigm,'' etc., etc., etc.) from underground bunkers like they're playing fucking video game.....



- Claiming that immoral behavior is somehow ''legal'' is a sure sign of a coward looking for cover. But not to worry, all those war-mongering supporters of this rank treachery will have a chance to dodge 30,000 drones themselves and then they can see how much they like it when it's the local cops shooting at them for a traffic violation......

K&R

[got root]

77. wow! it's amazing how much better a thread can become by putting just a few people on ignore

i bet the rest of DU will be much improved, too.

the list...

Username Block Mail Full Ignore Remove

randome Block Mail Remove
Bolo Boffin Block Mail Remove
SidDithers Block Mail Remove
TheWraith Block Mail Remove
ProSense Block Mail Remove

[lonestarnot]

95. Do you always air your dirty laundry in public?

[got root]

122. no, but i do pass along tips on how to keep it clean

[SidDithers]

162. So does MIRT...

Sid

[randome]

123. IDGNDFDUFDBDFDFND

Ha! Made ya look!

[bluestate10]

146. Add me to your list.

I don't cotton to stuffing my head up my ass thus avoiding any contradictory viewpoint. Putting onself in an echo chamber simply mean that one eventually becomes about as educated and well rounded as the average Fox News and Webnews viewers/readers.

[fascisthunter]

158. ha... you too!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

89. No problem. No doubt Obama will bring the assassins to justice along with their bosses.

However, it is not advisable to hold one's breath awaiting that occasion of decency and justice.

[BetsysGhost]

97. 30,000 Drones, one coming to your neighborhood soon

and I ain't talking about what GWB did.

http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&tab=ww#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=drones+over+american+cities&oq=drones+over+america&aq=1&aqi=g4&aql=&gs_l=hp.1.1.0l4.0.0.1.7869.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0...0.0.5apD43qEAMM&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=686201e7dfeb19d5&biw=1280&bih=671

[patrice]

103. Good luck trying to end these policies under a Republican President, all. nt

[sabrina 1]

125. Well, we knew that, which is why we elected Democrats.

Who would have thought that it would only get worse? So what do we do now? Remain silent while human beings are being slaughtered in our name? Sorry to anyone who expects me to do that. I read history, I remember the last time a people remained silent as little by little their government grew more and more violent and by the time they realized that they should be doing something about it, it was too late.

Of course I know that Americans do not view the people of Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and wherever else we are killing people, as real human beings. But that is the real danger. The people in the other historical story I referred to above, they also did not view the people their government was killing as human beings.

[morningfog]

127. We have no chance of ending them under a Democratic one either. Not much difference here.

[Autumn]

138. We haven't had any luck ending it under a Democratic President

Guess we need all the luck we can get.

[Dragonfli]

117. Kick for Jeremy Scahill, he has done a great job reporting on the MIC and Blackwater!

He has earned my respect for his consistency.

[Electric Monk]

120. Is Jeremy Scahill running for office?

[Dragonfli]

121. Not as far as I know, what have you heard? I would support a truth seeking journalist for congress

If you know of a race he is in, let me know so that I can support his bid.

[JoePhilly]

129. Stay home dems, stay home.

[Better Believe It]

131. You're off topic. Do you have an opinion on what is being discussed?

If you do, please share it with me and other DU'ers.

Thanks.

[JoePhilly]

132. I did share it. I'll expand.

On the anniversary of Obama taking out OBL ... it is very important for the media to try and diminish Obama, from the right and from the left.

The attacks from right will claim that killing OBL was no big deal. The attacks coming from Obama's left will claim that he's "the most imperialist" President ever, and other such things.

The media needs a close election, and the only way to get that is to increase turn out from the right, and decrease it on the left.

As the media pushes these two totally opposite caricatures of Obama, those arguments will be propagated into the appropriate social media outlets to manipulate turn out.

Now ... I keep waiting for some one like you too start the Progressive Prez 2016 forum here on DU ... after all, Obama will win in 2012 ... and so if you want to end his imperialist regime from continuing past 2016 ... who you putting forward now that there will be no primary??

[Better Believe It]

135. Do you wish to refute the article or not? So far you haven't.

I'm listening.

Go ahead.

Don't be shy.

[JoePhilly]

139. We use drones. Better that then sending in ground troops.

The end.

[DeSwiss]

136. Attacks to the right of him, attacks to the left!!!

Here ya go, try a pair of these:

Sorry, but this isn't about one man. This is about a MIC policy that says its okay to use drones to kill people from above without the slightest clue of who the fuck they're aiming at! Likewise, I KNOW that if this were a Repuke President authorizing these killings all of DU would be screaming at the top of its internet lungs. Either drone murdering is wrong or its not. Apparently you're okay with it. No matter how many innocent babies end up dead.

- For me, I want no part of any party which condones these cowardly acts.....

[JoePhilly]

140. A few points ...

1) You claim ... they don't have the "slightest clue of who the fuck they're aiming at!" Really, no clue, none. Hard to take that level of hyperbole seriously.

2) When Bush invaded Afghanistan, I supported that. When he became distracted and went to Iraq, I opposed him. Screaming about drones is like screaming about a tank. A drone is a weapon. Weapons are designed such that my weapon makes it easier for me to kill you than for you to kill me. Troops are weapons. And if I get to pick whether we use troops or drones, I pick drones.

3) I supported candidate Obama's intent to (a) leave Iraq, and (b) increase focus back on Afghanistan and the Pakistan border. If Bush had maintained that focus, I'd probably have supported it ... and I'm on DU, I know others here agree with my perspective on this ... so you might want to try to not speak for everyone on DU.

4) So since you aren't going to be part of the party that does these evil things, and I suppose you won't be voting for Obama (you don't have to answer that, I know the TOS) ... let's discuss reality. Obama will win in 2012, with or without your vote. My question is one I've asked BBI ... when will you start the PROGRESSIVE PREZ 2016 forum here on DU? Obama is evil, but he will be president for 4 more years.

So that is the question .. .what's your plan for 2016?

There will be no primary of Obama. Are you going to wait around until 1 year before the next election and THEN bring forward the candidate you want?

I find it hard to take seriously those on DU who attack Obama endlessly, on a site dedicated to helping get Dems elected, when they have yet to start a POSITIVE discussion on who they want to put forward in 2016.

[bluestate10]

148. Fortunately ant railing in the wilderness are unheard.

I have yet to see the poster propose any alternative that does not derve the best interests of republicans, that alone tells me all that I need to know about intent.

[Rex]

141. Keep up the good work!

nt.

[mike_c]

143. I can't believe that democrats and so-called progressives defend this shit....

It was wrong when Bush did it and it's even more wrong now that Obama has expanded it. This is all about making the planet safe for American corporate greed and political imperialism. I cannot stretch and distort my values sufficiently to wrap them around Obama's drone wars for imperialism. I don't understand how others can.

[bluestate10]

149. I was ok with it when Bush did it and am ok now that Obama does it.

Covert wars are simply efficient means to kill people that would kill millions in a single strike if they could. The difference between Bush and Obama is that Obama has a far more comprehensive program of eliminating terror. Bush did nothing to collect poorly secured nuclear material from around the world, Obama is collecting that material because he understands what a nuke or dirty bomb can do to a large eastern or western city. Bush focused lives and resources on wars that should not have been fought, Obama focuses on people that have taken a pledge to kill as many innocents as possible due some twisted interpretation of their religion. In my mind, there is plenty of legal and moral justification for drone strikes.

[Hissyspit]

157. Actually, since it is killing non-combatants and rescuers, they are quite probably war crimes.

Whoever does them.

[Uncle Joe]

145. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Better Believe It.

[kenny blankenship]

147. We only kill people who *don't like* us.

Last edited Tue May 1, 2012, 02:58 PM - Edit history (1)

(And more recently, some people who just remind us of them.)

Putin kills people, too, and I don't hear any of you complaining about him.

[Bake]

152. Do you REALLY think this is anything NEW?

We've done the same thing for decades. We're just doing it with technology now, instead of risking human agents on the ground. Grow up.

Bake

[Daniel537]

160. What's the alternative, Mr. Scahill?

Should people like al-Awlaki be allowed to use their American citizenship as a shield so that they can continue to plot acts of terror against their country?

[Better Believe It]

164. How about following the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

I think there might be something in the Constitution against the government murdering American citizens or detaining them without due process.

In any case that's far too liberal in this new age of permanent war against evil doers, extremists, comminists and terriorists.

No more coddling enemies of the American way of life!

Defend the Fatherland!

[Fumesucker]

168. Homeland != Fatherland..

So stop saying that!

[Daniel537]

170. So if an American goes overseas, joins al-Qaida and declares war against his country

and actively plots to kill fellow citizens, are we supposed to just say, "oh well, he's a citizen, we can't do anything about it. Just gotta hope he turns himself in."? Its easy to criticize the tactics we use against these people, but what exactly is the solution people like Scahill and yourself propose? Just wait it out and hope somebody turns these guys in? If al-Awlaki and Adam Gadahn don't want to end up on the receiving end of one of these drones, the answer is simple. Don't join a group that the US congress has already labeled a terrorist org. and has authorized the use of force against.

[Better Believe It]

173. If an American becomes a Marxist and declares "war" against capitalism should they be murdured?

Last edited Wed May 2, 2012, 11:27 PM - Edit history (1)

Does the government have to prove an American is a "terrorist" engaged in such plots or shall we just accept the word of the government, without any evidence?

The government is now engaged in killing many people "suspected" of being terrorists! Just suspected!

Who knows .... they might actually be terrorists!

We can find out after they have been murdured!

[Bolo Boffin]

174. If they also join a terrorist group outside the ability of US power to arrest and then

start coordinating terrorist attacks against the United States? What then?

Because that would be more equal a comparison.